Windows users don't LIKE Microsoft the way Mac users LOVE Apple. Additionally, Microsoft's model has been consumers pirate our stuff so business has to pay for it. As a result, most people aren't used to sending money to Microsoft. They buy a grey-box, Dell, Compaq, etc., and it runs Windows. The idea of buying stuff from Microsoft is a bit odd. (I think that AOL could make a real push here, but the other labels might not trust AOL Time Warner with the business).
Remember, most PC consumers buy a cheap machine, plug it in, and it sits. Maybe the neighbor's kid brings some software that they warezed over and installs it, but that's about it.
Apple hypes the new consumer products, and hypes them like mad. iTunes 4 was HEAVILY anticipated, the Rendezvous streaming was shown 4 or 5 months ago? As a result, we all upgraded in my office to listen to each other's music. The iTunes store was an added bonus. It's very cool.
Time to start backing up my iTunes folder onto DVDs...
Yeah, the home theater at home has a decent system (the fronts could be improved). CDs are fine, Super CD/DVD-A will be nice when those formats come into their own. But if I want a cheesy pop song for at the gym or when coding, I don't need the audiophile quality...
Apple computers cost more... not for an equivalent machine, but because they don't have low end machines. This results in price senstive customers going elsewhere (BTW: I moved my office to OS X, I don't think that the machines are overpriced).
As a result, Apple, with 4% of sales (and probably 6%-8% of the online market, as Apple machines tend to stay deployed longer), Apple has a thriving Shareware market, and now an online music market. While Apple is a SMALL piece of the desktop computer market, the users are more interested in purchasing things.
This results in that 4%-8% of the PC market POSSIBLY being anywhere from 10%-50% of the potential online music buying crowd. The iPod, clearly the "best" if not expensive MP3 player, is 50%-50% Mac-Windows sales. So while the iPod is special (Mac users tend to actually LIKE Apple), music may be similar.
I LOVE iTunes 4. A bunch of us upgraded at the office, and we can play each other's music which is cool. I bought a few tracks of songs that I find catchy but don't like (nice background music when zoning or at the gym). I won't rerip my existing CDs, but new CDs are going to be AAC encoded.
iTunes 4 is a great program, almost makes a Mac worthwhile. There are other little apps like that that make the Mac a nice platform.
Inform them that Redhat, a public traded company, has a great solution. It should be competitive with their other solutions, with them normally coming in cheaper. Ask that they be included in the bid. Contact someone in Redhat sales, explain that you can't download open source, but you would like an inexpensive agreement.
They will likely be happy with an unsolicited sale, and give you a quote for a supported library. Management doesn't care that they are open source, they are caring about saving money...
BTW: put on a nice shirt, pressed pants, and a tie (if appropriate at your corp) before pitching it. Explain that they are a vendor that you have heard good things about, and feel that they might be competitive.
You don't understand how business works. Talk in dollars and cents...
My migration from Win2K -> OS X has been interesting. There were some panicked users, but they are slowly adapting and really digging the system. And managing the computers is really easy.
Sure it's standard via NFS on Unix, but the 80s Unix desktop isn't real. I have a nice GUI environment for my users, easy to manage, and works great. I get the best of Unix and the best of a Mac/Windows environment.
We tried to add some Linux desktops to the environment... It still isn't "there yet." The applications are ugly and counter intuitive. I don't care that it is easy to "customize," I DON'T want my users to spend more than an hour setting up their "machine" (account), I want them making us money.:)
I'm finishing our Win2K -> OS X migration... WOW is networking more pleasant... at least for a small network.
You mount the home directory off a server, instead of copying it up and down (takes forever) on Windows.
Mozilla isn't on any machines, it's in the Applications share, mounted at/Network/Applications. They can run the.App file, and everything works fine...
Really nice, I have 3 alternative browsers and 1 alternative IM client, for people that want them. There is no installation, and they are available anywhere.
For 15 minutes, it blows you away. After 30 minutes, it fades into the background. After an hour, someone convinces you that they slow you down. After two weeks, you realize that they provide you with visual clues that make you faster, because you know what is going on without thinking, because that "eye candry" is a useful part of the UI...
I want to replace my ReplayTV with an HD Tivo when they ship. I have one of the Panasonic Showstoppers. The thing that is a killer... with the hard drive update, my box would sell for $400 on eBay. However, if the service is discontinued...:( Oh well, price of technology... I don't know what I'll do if Replay cuts service before HD DirecTivo ships, I don't want to buy two DirecTivos...:(
Now if DirecTV committed to HMO, maybe I would, so I could move the DirecTivo Series 2 to the bedroom when HD Tivo ships...
I don't travel much, but when I do, I need connectivity. I have an AOL account merely for those occaisional trips. In any hotel, I can make two calls (at $1/each), to get a local access number and connect in. That lets me grab my email from the road.
When I am staying somewhere for a while on a trip, I stay in a hotel with ethernet, that gives me connectivity. I just bought a Samsung i330, which is a PDA/Cel combo... I have it because I've never carried a PDA, but I always carry my phone, now I'll have a PDA with me.
One trip, I didn't have connectivity, and dialing in was driving me crazy. Across the street from my hotel was a Coffee shop with a Wifi point, so I went and got coffee and checked my email before starting my day.
If Sprint would be useful and let me use my laptop via the phone (which can supposedly be done, just need the cables), I may use it when at a hotel. The $10/day for broadband is fine, but if I didn't have to worry, that would be great.
However, when I'm not in my hotel, I have 0 need for real connectivity. I'll set up a private email that forwards to the phone, but if you need me when I'm traveling, you call me. If you send me a file, I get it when I get back to my hotel.
Nearlynet is sufficient, and there is no reason to pay a premium for more connectivity than that. Permanet (3G) will likely fail, because what people WANT is a reasonably inexpensive unmetered service. Metered is annoying, I don't want to think, should I spend $3 on this service this time. $10/mo. is an easy to justify business expense, and doesn't require individually making the decision.
We've been moving from Win2K -> OS X to save costs. When my little business expanded from 4 people to 12, I was looking at getting a PC Support person. The NT servers break randomly, and the desktops explode at times. All of a sudden, 2K/XP refuses to recognize VPN settings, or other oddities.
I spent a few days learning my way around OS X Server, and now all the machines are centrally controlled. I run non-default applications off/Network/Applications.
When I look at the cost of the person, the $200/seat different in price is pretty insignificant. A low-end "business class" machine (that comes with XP Pro and non-shitty hardware), will cost around $1200 w/ LCD monitor and a support plan. For $1300, I get a 15" iMac... that's not a major cost difference. On top of that, I can get Office v. X on the Mac for $200 when I buy a workstation, so for normal personel, I have a machine for $1500. I then add the machine to the Support iMacs computer group, and the login permissions and settings are set.
To each there own. If you aren't comfortable learning to use OS X Server, however, I wouldn't bother. While you could do the whole thing with Linux + OpenLDAP, it would be a bit more painful.
At the lowend, the costs are pretty similar for me. At a the high-end, I can see the difference spreading to $500-$800 (dual G4 1.43 vs P4 vs dual-Xeon), so that might affect your decision...
The Adobe decision collection costs me $1000/seat though...:(
OTOH: putting my designers on BBEdit instead of Dreamweaver... Priceless.:)
If I need a custom solution, I'm wiling to pay the $10-$50k to have it developed. However, some systems aren't really custom and someone needs it. I'm happy to pay $700/designer for Photoshop, it's critical to their function. I'm not willing to pay $20m to get 4 licenses of Photoshop.
As a result, commercial companies can spread the development costs among EVERYONE.
In this case, let's suppose that their is a system that would benefit everyone. They sell licenses until the set profit (cost +, it's government contracts primarily), then everyone gets it.
This avoids lock in, but eliminates the open source problem. Right now either someone duplicates an existing product for the benefit of Free Software (how GNU started), or someone builds a custom solution and releases it (I'm discounting the hobbiest scratching an itch that results in thousands of MP3 players).
If government agencies began to require this for certain projects, we'd get a lot more software under the GPL.
Changes in the EU, end of rotating presidency...
on
SuSE 8.2 Announced
·
· Score: 1
Sorry for the dupe, dog hopped on keyboard
The Paris-Berlin combination is trying to eliminate the rotating presidency and change the power structures in the EU to limit control to the larger nations. The countries wanted into the EU, but France is trying th change what makes up the EU now that they are in.
I worded things wrong, France and Germany is trying to use the nations desire for enterance into the EU (and those markets) to take over control of Europe. Within 10 years, France and Germany will have dominated the EU, and gained significant control over all the peoples of Europe, unless the current leaders and the US figure out a solution.
If your media wasn't so busy brainwashing you with one sided stories, you might know what's going on. But instead, the rich and educated "Europeans" have decided that the lowly French, British, German, Dutch, etc., citizens can't handle it. So the people of the countries will have it all done for them, and their nation-states will slowly be destroyed.
The American media has MANY problem. However, at least because of the market conditions, they try to make news accessible. The European news that I've seen is like the NPR crap in this country, a bunch of left wing nuts taking federal money to talk down to people and feel all enlightened about it. Unfortunately, you aren't considered "capable" of seeing what is actually going on, and instead you look at US news sources and just shake your head because it is so different.
Ah well, the old European Union was a step in the right direction. I don't think you'll like the new one built in its name.
The current situation most certainly has made France and Germany "enemies" of the United States. This is not about Iraq, or Oil, or terrorism.
This is about a Franco-Prussian alliance that is bent upon uniting to dominate Europe. Instead of marching armies, they are using diplomacy, access to markets, etc., to force everyone into this European Union that they are trying to structure so that France and Germany run it. As a result, the other states lose their independance. At least in the US, it is run by representatives of all 50 states. To goal of the Paris-Berlin axis is to structure a system such that the other nations all answer to this power duopoly.
Britain is strong enough to avoid being bullied, by openning up trade but retaining some autonomy. This latest temper-tantrum has shown many eastern European nations what they are getting into. Hopefully the US pulls a rabbit out of its hat and offers the "new" Europe nations a better option than the EU, otherwise we're just lying here while Paris and Berlin unite to dominate Europe through economic and political strength instead of armies.
The US is interested in the middle east because of oil. I really find it funny that all the peaceniks mention oil as though it's a secret that we care about the oil over there. The US acts to preserves its interests...
I realize that you guys all think that the President is an idiot, but did it EVER occur to you that MAYBE the reason we've been threatening to hit Iraq since 1998 was the realization that he's getting closer and closer? Is it possible that Bush went gung-ho on Iraq because of something that his intelligent briefings provided him?
Nah, must just be a way for him to pay off his oil buddies...
Just FYI the "it's about the oil" crowd, a free Iraq that pumps lots of oil and leaves OPEC actually reduces the price of crude oil. It's NOT clear that a lower price of crude benefits the oil companies. They make their money on high oil prices. In some ways they lose because of inelastic pricing... in some ways they win because of "cost+" accounting...
We looked into XUL as a solution to our content management system about 12 or 18 months ago, I don't remember, and my concept of time is seriously warped from the dor-com days.
At the time, they CLAIMED that you could do all this cool stuff with XUL, but the documentation (including the 1 ONE official book on XUL, sucked). They all focused on building the GUI inside of the Mozilla browser.
We were working with a potential partner that has a browser based application, whose bain of existance is IE's print feature (they log printing with their print button, but an IE print would trash that). The idea of a "stripped down" browser that would start at their screen would rock. Additionally, using XUL widgets would let them eliminate the frames and other garbage, making their app easier. They liked the idea of using a XUL toolbar instead of a frame with buttons.
Unfortunately, weeks of research through their docs went nowhere, and we worked on a Java solution, and the deal went south over time. Now we have our own Java based solution, and don't want to migrate to XUL.
The XUL + ECMAScript stuff should have been pushed earlier with proper documentation. Instead they pushed it to grab some marketshare when they weren't ready.
I love Camino/Chimera, and the other Gecko browsers (use Phoenix when on a Windows machine), but they missed a lot of time with not getting XUL as an early solution. They should have put out (early) some shells that you could start from then add your other functionality.
Sure, other projects have picked it up since then, but with the XUL + ECMAScript solution being the red-headed stepchild for a while, they lost some steam.
It'll happen, but every year that they wasted will take 2 years to recover, as growth has slowed down and projects chose other tech.
That said, I love Mozilla now, but I think that the shifting of priorities cost them mindshare that will be painful to recover.
California imports energy, because they won't let plants get built. Oil is used whenever there is a need to adjust the amount of energy. The base load is covered by the others, but when you make changes at the margin, it's oil.
And oil is the cheapest, which is why its a HUGE part of our energy. There is a lot of posturing for clean power, but oil is about 30% of it, and all the marginal capacity.
If I get a good cover letter, I read it. However, we're rarely hiring. We're really small, and I don't have time to read dozens of unsolicited resumes. However, when someone whose opinion I trust recommends that I interview someone, I take the time out to do so. If there is a fit, I consider them.
I don't do anyone favors. However, if someone that I trust recommends them, I take a look. It's a screening process.
That's the way the world works. When someone I know recommends you, they put their credibility on the line. When someone emails me a resume, it means nothing.
In reality, if you want more energy, you stick a hole is Saudi Arabia, who spends $2/barrel to extract it, put it on a boat to the US, and stick it in a plant.
While some of our energy comes from other sources (coal, nuclear, hydropower, etc.), the variable sources of energy are oil based. The reason we can't get alternative energy is because oil is SO cheap and plentiful. Sure, the current "cheap oil" will run out in 20 years (it will ALWAYS run out in 20 years, that's how you extract oil), the newer technology expands the amount of oil that we can get cheaply.
Now, oil power plants can/should be more efficient ways to get energy from oil than cars are... however the amount of increase is the problem. Are power plants 20% more efficient? 50% more efficient? 100% more efficient? What about getting the power from point A to point B?
Your point about upgrading missing something. Power plants are operated for a LONG time. Taking one down for an upgrade is expensive and reduces power output... you can't do it unless there is a lot of spare electricity. And given the desire to not build extra plants, there isn't a lot of spare. As a result, plants are upgraded less frequently that you'd desire.
Cars on the other hand, are in service for between 10 and 20 years (sure exceptions on each side, but I'd say that the average car is probably in use for 10-12 years). This is a guess, maybe I'm over/underestimating how long cars are used. However, that process of replacing cars frequently means that they ARE upgraded regularly. Once you have a new way of converting gasoline to energy (say, reducing gas use by 20%), within 3 years, a LOT of cars have that in place, and within 5 years, at least half of the cars on the road have it.
Compare that to power plants, where you need a massive change to take them down, and new ones aren't that common.
Will a power plant shut down for 6 months for a 5% increase in efficiency? Will all new GM owners get the new generation capacity if it happens to be in the hood of their car when they buy it?
My company hired a coop (we're a 5 person shop, so we only have one). Despite getting lots of resumes via email, I rarely read them. This one came to me from my cousin. Previous hires came from people recommended to me by people in my fraternity.
People I know that are still undergrads are mostly people from my college fraternity (i.e. they were freshman my senior year or first year out when I visited friends there). The ones getting jobs are the ones that network well. The rest are finding research jobs on campus.
The days where you float your resume and get 20 phone calls are over. Sorry.
They all have names for it, it doesn't mean that they necessarily act as management. Any angel/venture investor will take a board seat to advice the company. Depending on the ownership, they may hold multiple seats or other way to manipulate the situation.
I'm not disputing the Canopy is pulling the strings here, but I wouldn't be certain. SCO Managment is responsible. I can't figure out how to cut through their BS and figure out how much Canopy holds... Remember, SCO is a public company, anyone can buy shares of SCO...
I really can't tell how much Canopy owns of SCO. My guess is that they funded Caldera, and would likely have had between 20% and 50% of Caldera, and diluted down with the merger. However, they are likely the largest (or one of the largest) shareholders.
I would suggest that before you attack companies that took capital from Canopy Group before it became "blood money" (which we still don't know, who knows who pulled the trigger).
I think that Canopy may or may not be involved, but we should find out what happens before we open fire one anyone that took their investment. I think that with your stature, you should come out and take a stand in defense of Trolltech, given that their are idiots in the thread that saw a few mentions and are screaming and yelling about Trolltech.
Otherwise, you're going to hurt a LOT of innocent bystanders by this mistaken belief that companies can simply buy out investors because they don't like the actions of other companies.
Shareholders own the company. The company does not own it's shareholders.
A publically traded company can't control who owns their shares.
A privately held company needs to be careful when exacting control.
A shareholder owns part of Trolltech. Trolltech has NO say over the actions of the shareholder. Trolltech cannot simply "buy them out" unless they want to sell.
Your actions are insane, encourage illegal behavior, and is a blatant attack upon the capitalist system. You would dry up all capital.
My one outside shareholder happens to be a manager/owner in a separate business, one of whose shareholders happens to have as a shareholder Bill Gates.
So by tracking through 5 corporate entities, I'm connected to Microsoft. I should be subject to boycott and harassment for every decision that Microsoft makes if I can't buy out my shareholder (and/or they don't want to sell)?
What about publically traded companies? I bet you that one of the partners in the Canopy Group owns some IBM stock either directly or indirectly. Should we attack IBM for this?
You're absolutely nuts and misinformed. This action has ZERO bearing on Trolltech, and Bruce Perens and ANYONE trying to link this to Trolltech is being irresponsible.
Look, Canopy Group is an investor in several technology companies. One of those companies is out of control, and should be penalized. However, going after ANYONE that has an investor in common with SCO is out of control.
Trolltech is a privately held company, but they likely took this investment prior to SCO's decision.
As a previous poster mentioned, Canopy owns 5.8% of Trolltech. You're going to attack the other 94.2% of Trolltech shareholders because of an unrelated business's actions happens to have as an investor someone that owns 5.8% of their company?
I have a lot of respect for you as one of the leading intellectuals in this movement. However, as a small business owner, I'm terrified of what you are saying.
My company has small holdings in several of our clients. They OFTEN take courses of actions that I don't like. If you were to attack another of my clients because of what one of them did, because I was a shareholder in both? I don't think that you are being at ALL fair.
If you believe that the Canopy Group is behind this behavior, than I would suggest an announcement that ANY privately held company that takes investment capital from them (from this point, not retroactively), will be shunned. However, Trolltech did NOTHING wrong, other than take an investment from a company whose other investment did something that you don't like.
I have a third party with an ownership stake in my company. The relationship had been rocky, but quite frankly, I couldn't afford to buy them out, even if they were willing to sell. If you organized a boycott of me because of something they did, I'd be floored.
Unless you are prepared to coordinate the fundraising to buy the Canopy Group out of Trolltech (and any other company that you are prepared to boycott in your crusade against this venture capital firm), back off. You're being extremely unfair to Trolltech, who has done nothing but provide amazing software to their commercial clients (of which we are one, albeit for only one developer) and FREE software to the open source community.
Your imagination about Canopy attacking GNOME is fascinating, but they are a MINORITY shareholder. They cannot cooerce Trolltech management. Deal with Trolltech based upon Trolltech's actions, not the actions of a third party.
Imagine if you were being held personally accountable for the actions of a second cousin through marriage? I don't imagine you'd like that. Same for Trolltech and SCO.
You ever get a song in your head, something from years ago, or something from a radio station, that you like? Sometimes I'm interested in hearing their other music, so I want a CD. Sometimes I just want that song. I used to get it off Napster, now I normally just don't bother.
For example, sometimes some of the cheesy Top-40 stuff is catchy and would be fun to have in the background while I'm at work.
I'll likely sign up for this. When I want to hear a song, I can buy the song.
Sure, if I want to buy a CD from someone, I'll go to a store (or Amazon.com), and get the CD. Then I get the CD, rip a version for iTunes/iPod, burn a copy with CD-Text for my Jukebox, and keep the original for in a friend's car or just to hold on to.
Don't thing that this REPLACING buying an album, the RIAA isn't interested in replacing the business model of member companies. They are looking to "curb piracy." When they get a popular song out there, some people buy the album, others go and download it off one of the piracy networks. Now, Apple users (who have shown that they are willing to pay for something that they consider quality, by virtue of owning an Apple) have a third choice. They can go and buy the song and have it really soon.
If you want an album on CD, buy the CD. If you want 1-2 songs, you can now buy the songs.
From what I've read, a show really needs 5 years to go into syndication, with improvements up to 7 years. As a rule, the studios don't make much money on the first-run of the show, the profits are in syndicating it afterwards. So while Fox wasn't making money off WB/UPN (probably were with UPN, who overpaid to get a hot franchise), it is making money licensing it to its FX subsidiary and the weekend syndication rights.
Once 7 years are complete, the studio has no incentive to "subsidize" the production of the show, which is why most successful shows die at that point. The actors get over compensated for 7 years, which they wouldn't past that. As a result, the actors leave, because it stops being worth it.
No specialized knowledge, just parroting what I've read... feel free to correct if you're "in the industry" and can correct where I'm wrong.
There is a thriving Mac Shareware market, while the Windows Shareware market looks like it's been drying up. AOL has been able to raise rates, while discount ISPs advertise left and right. People may pay attention to AOL losing a small number of users, but they are making money on the existing one.
There are many things that I'll buy for $5-$10 when I'm in a store, but online it's a pain. I have to fish out my credit card, fill out a form, etc. If I'm an AOL user (and I actually am, it's the easiest dialup solution for when I'm out of town, despite only getting used 4-8 times a year), paying an extra couple of bucks on the same account isn't too bad an idea.
Remember, you don't have to initiate a new transfer, you just have to sign up. Also, you need to understand the scale.... get a mere 1 million signups (impossible for most dot-coms, probably not unreasonable for AOL), and you're making another $10m-$20m a month off your subscribers.
AOL users pay a premium for AOL. There is no reason to believe that they won't pay a premium for a music service that is as easy to use as AOL.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows users don't LIKE Microsoft the way Mac users LOVE Apple. Additionally, Microsoft's model has been consumers pirate our stuff so business has to pay for it. As a result, most people aren't used to sending money to Microsoft. They buy a grey-box, Dell, Compaq, etc., and it runs Windows. The idea of buying stuff from Microsoft is a bit odd. (I think that AOL could make a real push here, but the other labels might not trust AOL Time Warner with the business).
Remember, most PC consumers buy a cheap machine, plug it in, and it sits. Maybe the neighbor's kid brings some software that they warezed over and installs it, but that's about it.
Apple hypes the new consumer products, and hypes them like mad. iTunes 4 was HEAVILY anticipated, the Rendezvous streaming was shown 4 or 5 months ago? As a result, we all upgraded in my office to listen to each other's music. The iTunes store was an added bonus. It's very cool.
Time to start backing up my iTunes folder onto DVDs...
Alex
Yeah, the home theater at home has a decent system (the fronts could be improved). CDs are fine, Super CD/DVD-A will be nice when those formats come into their own. But if I want a cheesy pop song for at the gym or when coding, I don't need the audiophile quality...
That AC was a retard...
Alex
Apple computers cost more... not for an equivalent machine, but because they don't have low end machines. This results in price senstive customers going elsewhere (BTW: I moved my office to OS X, I don't think that the machines are overpriced).
As a result, Apple, with 4% of sales (and probably 6%-8% of the online market, as Apple machines tend to stay deployed longer), Apple has a thriving Shareware market, and now an online music market. While Apple is a SMALL piece of the desktop computer market, the users are more interested in purchasing things.
This results in that 4%-8% of the PC market POSSIBLY being anywhere from 10%-50% of the potential online music buying crowd. The iPod, clearly the "best" if not expensive MP3 player, is 50%-50% Mac-Windows sales. So while the iPod is special (Mac users tend to actually LIKE Apple), music may be similar.
I LOVE iTunes 4. A bunch of us upgraded at the office, and we can play each other's music which is cool. I bought a few tracks of songs that I find catchy but don't like (nice background music when zoning or at the gym). I won't rerip my existing CDs, but new CDs are going to be AAC encoded.
iTunes 4 is a great program, almost makes a Mac worthwhile. There are other little apps like that that make the Mac a nice platform.
Alex
Inform them that Redhat, a public traded company, has a great solution. It should be competitive with their other solutions, with them normally coming in cheaper. Ask that they be included in the bid. Contact someone in Redhat sales, explain that you can't download open source, but you would like an inexpensive agreement.
They will likely be happy with an unsolicited sale, and give you a quote for a supported library. Management doesn't care that they are open source, they are caring about saving money...
BTW: put on a nice shirt, pressed pants, and a tie (if appropriate at your corp) before pitching it. Explain that they are a vendor that you have heard good things about, and feel that they might be competitive.
You don't understand how business works. Talk in dollars and cents...
My migration from Win2K -> OS X has been interesting. There were some panicked users, but they are slowly adapting and really digging the system. And managing the computers is really easy.
Alex
Sure it's standard via NFS on Unix, but the 80s Unix desktop isn't real. I have a nice GUI environment for my users, easy to manage, and works great. I get the best of Unix and the best of a Mac/Windows environment.
:)
We tried to add some Linux desktops to the environment... It still isn't "there yet." The applications are ugly and counter intuitive. I don't care that it is easy to "customize," I DON'T want my users to spend more than an hour setting up their "machine" (account), I want them making us money.
I'm finishing our Win2K -> OS X migration... WOW is networking more pleasant... at least for a small network.
/Network/Applications. They can run the .App file, and everything works fine...
You mount the home directory off a server, instead of copying it up and down (takes forever) on Windows.
Mozilla isn't on any machines, it's in the Applications share, mounted at
Really nice, I have 3 alternative browsers and 1 alternative IM client, for people that want them. There is no installation, and they are available anywhere.
Alex
For 15 minutes, it blows you away. After 30 minutes, it fades into the background. After an hour, someone convinces you that they slow you down. After two weeks, you realize that they provide you with visual clues that make you faster, because you know what is going on without thinking, because that "eye candry" is a useful part of the UI...
Alex
I want to replace my ReplayTV with an HD Tivo when they ship. I have one of the Panasonic Showstoppers. The thing that is a killer... with the hard drive update, my box would sell for $400 on eBay. However, if the service is discontinued... :( Oh well, price of technology... I don't know what I'll do if Replay cuts service before HD DirecTivo ships, I don't want to buy two DirecTivos... :(
Now if DirecTV committed to HMO, maybe I would, so I could move the DirecTivo Series 2 to the bedroom when HD Tivo ships...
A nervous customer...
Alex
I don't travel much, but when I do, I need connectivity. I have an AOL account merely for those occaisional trips. In any hotel, I can make two calls (at $1/each), to get a local access number and connect in. That lets me grab my email from the road.
When I am staying somewhere for a while on a trip, I stay in a hotel with ethernet, that gives me connectivity. I just bought a Samsung i330, which is a PDA/Cel combo... I have it because I've never carried a PDA, but I always carry my phone, now I'll have a PDA with me.
One trip, I didn't have connectivity, and dialing in was driving me crazy. Across the street from my hotel was a Coffee shop with a Wifi point, so I went and got coffee and checked my email before starting my day.
If Sprint would be useful and let me use my laptop via the phone (which can supposedly be done, just need the cables), I may use it when at a hotel. The $10/day for broadband is fine, but if I didn't have to worry, that would be great.
However, when I'm not in my hotel, I have 0 need for real connectivity. I'll set up a private email that forwards to the phone, but if you need me when I'm traveling, you call me. If you send me a file, I get it when I get back to my hotel.
Nearlynet is sufficient, and there is no reason to pay a premium for more connectivity than that. Permanet (3G) will likely fail, because what people WANT is a reasonably inexpensive unmetered service. Metered is annoying, I don't want to think, should I spend $3 on this service this time. $10/mo. is an easy to justify business expense, and doesn't require individually making the decision.
Alex
We've been moving from Win2K -> OS X to save costs. When my little business expanded from 4 people to 12, I was looking at getting a PC Support person. The NT servers break randomly, and the desktops explode at times. All of a sudden, 2K/XP refuses to recognize VPN settings, or other oddities.
/Network/Applications.
:(
:)
I spent a few days learning my way around OS X Server, and now all the machines are centrally controlled. I run non-default applications off
When I look at the cost of the person, the $200/seat different in price is pretty insignificant. A low-end "business class" machine (that comes with XP Pro and non-shitty hardware), will cost around $1200 w/ LCD monitor and a support plan. For $1300, I get a 15" iMac... that's not a major cost difference. On top of that, I can get Office v. X on the Mac for $200 when I buy a workstation, so for normal personel, I have a machine for $1500. I then add the machine to the Support iMacs computer group, and the login permissions and settings are set.
To each there own. If you aren't comfortable learning to use OS X Server, however, I wouldn't bother. While you could do the whole thing with Linux + OpenLDAP, it would be a bit more painful.
At the lowend, the costs are pretty similar for me. At a the high-end, I can see the difference spreading to $500-$800 (dual G4 1.43 vs P4 vs dual-Xeon), so that might affect your decision...
The Adobe decision collection costs me $1000/seat though...
OTOH: putting my designers on BBEdit instead of Dreamweaver... Priceless.
Alex
If I need a custom solution, I'm wiling to pay the $10-$50k to have it developed. However, some systems aren't really custom and someone needs it. I'm happy to pay $700/designer for Photoshop, it's critical to their function. I'm not willing to pay $20m to get 4 licenses of Photoshop.
As a result, commercial companies can spread the development costs among EVERYONE.
In this case, let's suppose that their is a system that would benefit everyone. They sell licenses until the set profit (cost +, it's government contracts primarily), then everyone gets it.
This avoids lock in, but eliminates the open source problem. Right now either someone duplicates an existing product for the benefit of Free Software (how GNU started), or someone builds a custom solution and releases it (I'm discounting the hobbiest scratching an itch that results in thousands of MP3 players).
If government agencies began to require this for certain projects, we'd get a lot more software under the GPL.
Sorry for the dupe, dog hopped on keyboard
The Paris-Berlin combination is trying to eliminate the rotating presidency and change the power structures in the EU to limit control to the larger nations. The countries wanted into the EU, but France is trying th change what makes up the EU now that they are in.
I worded things wrong, France and Germany is trying to use the nations desire for enterance into the EU (and those markets) to take over control of Europe. Within 10 years, France and Germany will have dominated the EU, and gained significant control over all the peoples of Europe, unless the current leaders and the US figure out a solution.
If your media wasn't so busy brainwashing you with one sided stories, you might know what's going on. But instead, the rich and educated "Europeans" have decided that the lowly French, British, German, Dutch, etc., citizens can't handle it. So the people of the countries will have it all done for them, and their nation-states will slowly be destroyed.
The American media has MANY problem. However, at least because of the market conditions, they try to make news accessible. The European news that I've seen is like the NPR crap in this country, a bunch of left wing nuts taking federal money to talk down to people and feel all enlightened about it. Unfortunately, you aren't considered "capable" of seeing what is actually going on, and instead you look at US news sources and just shake your head because it is so different.
Ah well, the old European Union was a step in the right direction. I don't think you'll like the new one built in its name.
The Paris-Berlin combination is trying to eliminate the rotating presidency and change the power structures in the EU to limit control to the larger
The current situation most certainly has made France and Germany "enemies" of the United States. This is not about Iraq, or Oil, or terrorism.
This is about a Franco-Prussian alliance that is bent upon uniting to dominate Europe. Instead of marching armies, they are using diplomacy, access to markets, etc., to force everyone into this European Union that they are trying to structure so that France and Germany run it. As a result, the other states lose their independance. At least in the US, it is run by representatives of all 50 states. To goal of the Paris-Berlin axis is to structure a system such that the other nations all answer to this power duopoly.
Britain is strong enough to avoid being bullied, by openning up trade but retaining some autonomy. This latest temper-tantrum has shown many eastern European nations what they are getting into. Hopefully the US pulls a rabbit out of its hat and offers the "new" Europe nations a better option than the EU, otherwise we're just lying here while Paris and Berlin unite to dominate Europe through economic and political strength instead of armies.
The US is interested in the middle east because of oil. I really find it funny that all the peaceniks mention oil as though it's a secret that we care about the oil over there. The US acts to preserves its interests...
I realize that you guys all think that the President is an idiot, but did it EVER occur to you that MAYBE the reason we've been threatening to hit Iraq since 1998 was the realization that he's getting closer and closer? Is it possible that Bush went gung-ho on Iraq because of something that his intelligent briefings provided him?
Nah, must just be a way for him to pay off his oil buddies...
Just FYI the "it's about the oil" crowd, a free Iraq that pumps lots of oil and leaves OPEC actually reduces the price of crude oil. It's NOT clear that a lower price of crude benefits the oil companies. They make their money on high oil prices. In some ways they lose because of inelastic pricing... in some ways they win because of "cost+" accounting...
Alex
We looked into XUL as a solution to our content management system about 12 or 18 months ago, I don't remember, and my concept of time is seriously warped from the dor-com days.
At the time, they CLAIMED that you could do all this cool stuff with XUL, but the documentation (including the 1 ONE official book on XUL, sucked). They all focused on building the GUI inside of the Mozilla browser.
We were working with a potential partner that has a browser based application, whose bain of existance is IE's print feature (they log printing with their print button, but an IE print would trash that). The idea of a "stripped down" browser that would start at their screen would rock. Additionally, using XUL widgets would let them eliminate the frames and other garbage, making their app easier. They liked the idea of using a XUL toolbar instead of a frame with buttons.
Unfortunately, weeks of research through their docs went nowhere, and we worked on a Java solution, and the deal went south over time. Now we have our own Java based solution, and don't want to migrate to XUL.
The XUL + ECMAScript stuff should have been pushed earlier with proper documentation. Instead they pushed it to grab some marketshare when they weren't ready.
I love Camino/Chimera, and the other Gecko browsers (use Phoenix when on a Windows machine), but they missed a lot of time with not getting XUL as an early solution. They should have put out (early) some shells that you could start from then add your other functionality.
Sure, other projects have picked it up since then, but with the XUL + ECMAScript solution being the red-headed stepchild for a while, they lost some steam.
It'll happen, but every year that they wasted will take 2 years to recover, as growth has slowed down and projects chose other tech.
That said, I love Mozilla now, but I think that the shifting of priorities cost them mindshare that will be painful to recover.
Alex
California imports energy, because they won't let plants get built. Oil is used whenever there is a need to adjust the amount of energy. The base load is covered by the others, but when you make changes at the margin, it's oil.
And oil is the cheapest, which is why its a HUGE part of our energy. There is a lot of posturing for clean power, but oil is about 30% of it, and all the marginal capacity.
If I get a good cover letter, I read it. However, we're rarely hiring. We're really small, and I don't have time to read dozens of unsolicited resumes. However, when someone whose opinion I trust recommends that I interview someone, I take the time out to do so. If there is a fit, I consider them.
I don't do anyone favors. However, if someone that I trust recommends them, I take a look. It's a screening process.
That's the way the world works. When someone I know recommends you, they put their credibility on the line. When someone emails me a resume, it means nothing.
Alex
In reality, if you want more energy, you stick a hole is Saudi Arabia, who spends $2/barrel to extract it, put it on a boat to the US, and stick it in a plant.
While some of our energy comes from other sources (coal, nuclear, hydropower, etc.), the variable sources of energy are oil based. The reason we can't get alternative energy is because oil is SO cheap and plentiful. Sure, the current "cheap oil" will run out in 20 years (it will ALWAYS run out in 20 years, that's how you extract oil), the newer technology expands the amount of oil that we can get cheaply.
Now, oil power plants can/should be more efficient ways to get energy from oil than cars are... however the amount of increase is the problem. Are power plants 20% more efficient? 50% more efficient? 100% more efficient? What about getting the power from point A to point B?
Your point about upgrading missing something. Power plants are operated for a LONG time. Taking one down for an upgrade is expensive and reduces power output... you can't do it unless there is a lot of spare electricity. And given the desire to not build extra plants, there isn't a lot of spare. As a result, plants are upgraded less frequently that you'd desire.
Cars on the other hand, are in service for between 10 and 20 years (sure exceptions on each side, but I'd say that the average car is probably in use for 10-12 years). This is a guess, maybe I'm over/underestimating how long cars are used. However, that process of replacing cars frequently means that they ARE upgraded regularly. Once you have a new way of converting gasoline to energy (say, reducing gas use by 20%), within 3 years, a LOT of cars have that in place, and within 5 years, at least half of the cars on the road have it.
Compare that to power plants, where you need a massive change to take them down, and new ones aren't that common.
Will a power plant shut down for 6 months for a 5% increase in efficiency? Will all new GM owners get the new generation capacity if it happens to be in the hood of their car when they buy it?
Alex
My company hired a coop (we're a 5 person shop, so we only have one). Despite getting lots of resumes via email, I rarely read them. This one came to me from my cousin. Previous hires came from people recommended to me by people in my fraternity.
People I know that are still undergrads are mostly people from my college fraternity (i.e. they were freshman my senior year or first year out when I visited friends there). The ones getting jobs are the ones that network well. The rest are finding research jobs on campus.
The days where you float your resume and get 20 phone calls are over. Sorry.
Time to work on the people skills.
Alex
They all have names for it, it doesn't mean that they necessarily act as management. Any angel/venture investor will take a board seat to advice the company. Depending on the ownership, they may hold multiple seats or other way to manipulate the situation.
I'm not disputing the Canopy is pulling the strings here, but I wouldn't be certain. SCO Managment is responsible. I can't figure out how to cut through their BS and figure out how much Canopy holds... Remember, SCO is a public company, anyone can buy shares of SCO...
I really can't tell how much Canopy owns of SCO. My guess is that they funded Caldera, and would likely have had between 20% and 50% of Caldera, and diluted down with the merger. However, they are likely the largest (or one of the largest) shareholders.
I would suggest that before you attack companies that took capital from Canopy Group before it became "blood money" (which we still don't know, who knows who pulled the trigger).
I think that Canopy may or may not be involved, but we should find out what happens before we open fire one anyone that took their investment. I think that with your stature, you should come out and take a stand in defense of Trolltech, given that their are idiots in the thread that saw a few mentions and are screaming and yelling about Trolltech.
Otherwise, you're going to hurt a LOT of innocent bystanders by this mistaken belief that companies can simply buy out investors because they don't like the actions of other companies.
Alex
Shareholders own the company. The company does not own it's shareholders.
A publically traded company can't control who owns their shares.
A privately held company needs to be careful when exacting control.
A shareholder owns part of Trolltech. Trolltech has NO say over the actions of the shareholder. Trolltech cannot simply "buy them out" unless they want to sell.
Your actions are insane, encourage illegal behavior, and is a blatant attack upon the capitalist system. You would dry up all capital.
My one outside shareholder happens to be a manager/owner in a separate business, one of whose shareholders happens to have as a shareholder Bill Gates.
So by tracking through 5 corporate entities, I'm connected to Microsoft. I should be subject to boycott and harassment for every decision that Microsoft makes if I can't buy out my shareholder (and/or they don't want to sell)?
What about publically traded companies? I bet you that one of the partners in the Canopy Group owns some IBM stock either directly or indirectly. Should we attack IBM for this?
You're absolutely nuts and misinformed. This action has ZERO bearing on Trolltech, and Bruce Perens and ANYONE trying to link this to Trolltech is being irresponsible.
Alex
Look, Canopy Group is an investor in several technology companies. One of those companies is out of control, and should be penalized. However, going after ANYONE that has an investor in common with SCO is out of control.
Trolltech is a privately held company, but they likely took this investment prior to SCO's decision.
As a previous poster mentioned, Canopy owns 5.8% of Trolltech. You're going to attack the other 94.2% of Trolltech shareholders because of an unrelated business's actions happens to have as an investor someone that owns 5.8% of their company?
I have a lot of respect for you as one of the leading intellectuals in this movement. However, as a small business owner, I'm terrified of what you are saying.
My company has small holdings in several of our clients. They OFTEN take courses of actions that I don't like. If you were to attack another of my clients because of what one of them did, because I was a shareholder in both? I don't think that you are being at ALL fair.
If you believe that the Canopy Group is behind this behavior, than I would suggest an announcement that ANY privately held company that takes investment capital from them (from this point, not retroactively), will be shunned. However, Trolltech did NOTHING wrong, other than take an investment from a company whose other investment did something that you don't like.
I have a third party with an ownership stake in my company. The relationship had been rocky, but quite frankly, I couldn't afford to buy them out, even if they were willing to sell. If you organized a boycott of me because of something they did, I'd be floored.
Unless you are prepared to coordinate the fundraising to buy the Canopy Group out of Trolltech (and any other company that you are prepared to boycott in your crusade against this venture capital firm), back off. You're being extremely unfair to Trolltech, who has done nothing but provide amazing software to their commercial clients (of which we are one, albeit for only one developer) and FREE software to the open source community.
Your imagination about Canopy attacking GNOME is fascinating, but they are a MINORITY shareholder. They cannot cooerce Trolltech management. Deal with Trolltech based upon Trolltech's actions, not the actions of a third party.
Imagine if you were being held personally accountable for the actions of a second cousin through marriage? I don't imagine you'd like that. Same for Trolltech and SCO.
Alex
You ever get a song in your head, something from years ago, or something from a radio station, that you like? Sometimes I'm interested in hearing their other music, so I want a CD. Sometimes I just want that song. I used to get it off Napster, now I normally just don't bother.
For example, sometimes some of the cheesy Top-40 stuff is catchy and would be fun to have in the background while I'm at work.
I'll likely sign up for this. When I want to hear a song, I can buy the song.
Sure, if I want to buy a CD from someone, I'll go to a store (or Amazon.com), and get the CD. Then I get the CD, rip a version for iTunes/iPod, burn a copy with CD-Text for my Jukebox, and keep the original for in a friend's car or just to hold on to.
Don't thing that this REPLACING buying an album, the RIAA isn't interested in replacing the business model of member companies. They are looking to "curb piracy." When they get a popular song out there, some people buy the album, others go and download it off one of the piracy networks. Now, Apple users (who have shown that they are willing to pay for something that they consider quality, by virtue of owning an Apple) have a third choice. They can go and buy the song and have it really soon.
If you want an album on CD, buy the CD. If you want 1-2 songs, you can now buy the songs.
Alex
From what I've read, a show really needs 5 years to go into syndication, with improvements up to 7 years. As a rule, the studios don't make much money on the first-run of the show, the profits are in syndicating it afterwards. So while Fox wasn't making money off WB/UPN (probably were with UPN, who overpaid to get a hot franchise), it is making money licensing it to its FX subsidiary and the weekend syndication rights.
Once 7 years are complete, the studio has no incentive to "subsidize" the production of the show, which is why most successful shows die at that point. The actors get over compensated for 7 years, which they wouldn't past that. As a result, the actors leave, because it stops being worth it.
No specialized knowledge, just parroting what I've read... feel free to correct if you're "in the industry" and can correct where I'm wrong.
Alex
There is a thriving Mac Shareware market, while the Windows Shareware market looks like it's been drying up. AOL has been able to raise rates, while discount ISPs advertise left and right. People may pay attention to AOL losing a small number of users, but they are making money on the existing one.
There are many things that I'll buy for $5-$10 when I'm in a store, but online it's a pain. I have to fish out my credit card, fill out a form, etc. If I'm an AOL user (and I actually am, it's the easiest dialup solution for when I'm out of town, despite only getting used 4-8 times a year), paying an extra couple of bucks on the same account isn't too bad an idea.
Remember, you don't have to initiate a new transfer, you just have to sign up. Also, you need to understand the scale.... get a mere 1 million signups (impossible for most dot-coms, probably not unreasonable for AOL), and you're making another $10m-$20m a month off your subscribers.
AOL users pay a premium for AOL. There is no reason to believe that they won't pay a premium for a music service that is as easy to use as AOL.
Alex